Update Git auto-deployment settings

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, but the description explicitly states it creates or replaces, which doesn't contradict. It discloses that the operation is destructive (replaces settings) and explains side effects like deploying immediately for PHP/static sites. The description adds context about the idempotent nature (full set replacement) and deployment triggers, which goes beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently conveys the full-set semantics and platform-specific behavior without unnecessary detail. However, it could be slightly more structured, but it remains effective and waste-free.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, multiple platform behaviors), the description is comprehensive. It covers prerequisites, optional parameter defaults, and platform-specific actions, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. No output schema is provided, but the description doesn't need to explain return values as it's a side-effect operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds critical context: it explains that `is_enabled` defaults to true and `directory` defaults to the document root, and that `installation_uuid` must be from a specific list and belong to the same customer. It also clarifies the relationship between parameters and deployment behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates or replaces Git auto-deployment settings for a website, listing the specific fields (repository, branch, directory, is_enabled). It stands out from siblings like hosting_getGitAutoDeploymentSettingsV1 and hosting_deleteGitAutoDeploymentSettingsV1, which are fetch and delete operations, respectively.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: it mentions prerequisites (installation_uuid must be from 'List Git installations' and belong to the same customer), and explains behavioral differences for different website types (PHP/static vs Node.js/Website Builder). It also references related tools like 'Start Node.js build' for Node.js websites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.